Americans United - Roger Williamshttps://www.au.org/tags/roger-williams
enSoviet Smear: Santorum Spreads Old Lie Linking Church-State Separation To Communismhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/soviet-smear-santorum-spreads-old-lie-linking-church-state-separation-to
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Here’s a newsflash for Santorum: Williams, Jefferson and Madison were not communists. Madison died in 1836. The first Soviet Constitution was ratified in 1918. It’s not hard to figure out that Madison had nothing to do with it. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) once said of himself and his Religious Right allies: “<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/15/rick-santorum-smart-peopl_n_1886684.html">We will never have the elite, smart people on our side</a>….” After Santorum’s <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-santorum-separation-church-and-state-communist-idea-not-american-one">recent comments</a> about church-state separation, it’s not hard to see why. During a conference call with members of extremist pastor (and failed Virginia political candidate) E.W. Jackson’s STAND America, Santorum propagated an old, tired lie about the First Amendment.</p><p>“[T]he words ‘separation of church and state’ is not in the U.S. Constitution, but it was in the constitution of the former Soviet Union,” he said. “That’s where it very, very comfortably sat, not in ours.” (Thanks to People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch for the audio.)</p><p>While the U.S. Constitution does not contain the phrase “separation of church and state” and the old <a href="http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/18cons01.html">Soviet Constitution</a> did proclaim that “the church is separated from the state,” Santorum could not be more wrong.</p><p>As famed church-state lawyer Leo Pfeffer once explained: “It is true, of course, that the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so widely held by the American people….” In other words, church-state separation is a summary of the Constitution’s religion clauses. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.</p><p>Roger Williams was talking about church-state separation in 1644. More than 100 years later, key founders like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson championed the idea. Madison, who is widely considered to be the “father of the Constitution,” was a primary drafter of the First Amendment. In a document known as the “Detached Memoranda,” Madison wrote, “Strongly guarded…is the separation between religion &amp; Gov’t in the Constitution of the United States….” </p><p>Here’s a newsflash for Santorum: Williams, Jefferson and Madison were not communists. Madison died in 1836. The first Soviet Constitution was ratified in 1918. It’s not hard to figure out that Madison had nothing to do with it.</p><p>The Soviet Union was a massive failure run by a lot of evil people, but its constitution contained some lofty ideas, some of which the reds clearly swiped from us. The document guaranteed freedom of the press, speech and assembly. It also promised: “The equal rights of citizens of the USSR are guaranteed in all fields of economic, political, social and cultural life.” Of course, we know it was all just talk. These measures weren’t actually put into practice.</p><p>Why does anyone even want Santorum’s opinion, anyway? He has risen through the ranks of the Religious Right thanks to his positions on “culture war” topics like abortion, <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/rick-santorum-thinks-gay-marriage-will-lead-to-less-marriage/">same-sex marriage</a> and <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-santorum-falsely-claims-students-cant-pray-school">prayer in schools</a>. Along the way, he has made some pretty extreme statements, telling rape victims to “<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/23/409242/santorum-to-rape-victims-make-the-best-out-of-a-bad-situation/">make the best</a> out of a bad situation” by not aborting a fetus if they get pregnant, and claiming that business owners who refuse to serve same-sex couples are being sent to “<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/rick-santorum-reeducation-camps_n_5531354.html">re-education camps</a>.”</p><p>But nothing he says is new, and yet he is a regularly featured speaker at the annual Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., and at other Religious Right confabs. </p><p>Despite that niche popularity, Santorum hasn’t held any public office since 2006. But it’s not for lack of trying. He lost his senate seat eight years ago by a whopping 17 percent and failed to secure the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 – <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/06/god_caught_backing_multiple_go.html">even though God wanted him to run</a>. He has <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/rick-santorum-2016_n_6173264.html">flirted with the idea</a> of running for president in 2016, but has not yet made a formal announcement. (No word yet on where God stands on that decision.)</p><p>In recent years, Santorum has been running a film production company that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/01/rick-santorums-production-company-is-releasing-a-hobby-lobby-movie/">makes Christian movies</a>. That’s where he belongs, not in public office. Anyone with such a poor understanding of the U.S. Constitution has no place in government. </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/responding-common-attacks-church-state-separation">Responding to Common Attacks on Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rick-santorum">Rick Santorum</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/soviet-constitution">Soviet Constitution</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-madison">James Madison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roger-williams">Roger Williams</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/thomas-jefferson">thomas jefferson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/communism">Communism</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ew-jackson">EW Jackson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/leo-pfeffer">Leo Pfeffer</a></span></div></div>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:56:37 +0000Simon Brown10729 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/soviet-smear-santorum-spreads-old-lie-linking-church-state-separation-to#commentsOath Oaf: Religious Right Columnist Calls For Religious Tests In Militaryhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/oath-oaf-religious-right-columnist-calls-for-religious-tests-in-military
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">To reject atheists – individuals who love their county and want to protect it through service in the Armed Forces – because they don’t have the proper &#039;religiously correct&#039; view isn’t just short-sighted, it is downright un-American.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Bryan Fischer, the director of issues analysis for the American Family Association (AFA), is like a demented, right-wing geyser: You can count on him to pop off regularly.</p><p>Fischer’s latest eruption is quite a doozy. In a <a href="http://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2014/09/10/no-atheist-should-be-permitted-to-serve-in-the-us-military?utm_source=OneNewsNow&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=16779175&amp;utm_content=105486778159&amp;utm_campaign=15018">Sept. 10 column</a> provocatively titled, “No atheist should be permitted to serve in the U.S. military,” Fischer argues that, well, no atheist should be permitted to serve in the U.S. military.</p><p>“There is no place in the United States military for those who do not believe in the Creator who is the source of every single one of our fundamental human and civil rights,” Fischer writes. “Serving in the military is a privilege, not a constitutional right. And it should be reserved for those who have America's values engraved on their hearts.”</p><p>He adds, “A man who doesn't believe in the Creator the Founders trusted certainly can live in America without being troubled for being a fool. But he most certainly should not wear the uniform.”</p><p>The AFA’s chief of cackle took up this rant after the American Humanist Association (AHA) publicized the case of an anonymous airman in Nevada who was denied the ability to reenlist because he refused to take an oath ending in “So help me God.”</p><p>As the <em>Air Force Times</em> reported, “The airman was told his only options were to sign the religious oath section of the contract without adjustment and recite an oath concluding with ‘so help me God,’ or leave the Air Force, the AHA said.”</p><p>The AHA argues that’s unconstitutional. Americans United agrees. We sent <a href="https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/americans-united-asks-air-force-not-to-bar-atheist-who-refused-to-take">a letter</a> to Pentagon officials Tuesday, advising them that they are violating this airman’s rights. The letter pointed out that the Air Force policy violates both the First Amendment and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and concluded, “Please promptly bring the Air Force into compliance with the U.S. Constitution and allow the airman to take his oath without invoking God.”</p><p>We hope this matter will be cleared up soon. The issue of Fischer’s confusion, however, is unlikely to be cleared up quickly. Put simply, the man is an extremist who, for all of his talk of the Founders, neither understands nor appreciates this nation’s founding principles.</p><p>Fischer blathers on about how “real” Americans love God and thus should have no qualms about swearing a religious oath.</p><p>Bryan Fischer, meet Roger Williams. The founder of Rhode Island and17th-century religious liberty pioneer knew why mandatory religious oaths were dangerous.</p><p>“A magistrate ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man,” Williams observed. He asserted that doing so would cause the oath taker “to take the name of God in vain.”</p><p>Right on, Roger! There are practical matters at issue here, too. We’re battling ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In Russia, Vladimir Putin continues his saber rattling. The Middle East, as always, is a tinderbox. In light of this unsettled global picture we’d have to be crazy to turn away enthusiastic and talented non-believers who want to serve their nation. We need all the help we can get.</p><p>(And please, let’s not hear any of that foolishness about there being no atheists in foxholes. I’m not a veteran and haven’t spent time in any foxholes, but I know plenty of atheists, humanists, agnostics and so on who have served and who retained their lack of belief in a deity all through their enlistment – even when under fire.)</p><p>To reject such people – individuals who love their country and want to protect it through service in the Armed Forces – because they don’t have the proper “religiously correct” view isn’t just short-sighted, it is downright un-American.</p><p>Fischer concludes his ugly rant with this gem: “Military service should be reserved for genuine Americans – and genuine Americans, like the Founders, believe in God.”</p><p>As usual, he’s wrong. “Genuine Americans” respect the right of conscience and celebrate the freedom to believe, or not, as that conscience dictates. People who feel differently about this, like Fischer, are still Americans, but there is a more fitting term for them: bigots.</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-mottos-pledges-and-resolutions-outside-schools">Religious Mottos, Pledges and Resolutions (outside schools)</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/workplace-discrimination-exemptions-religious-practice">In the Workplace: Discrimination, Exemptions &amp; Religious Practice</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/bryan-fischer">Bryan Fischer</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/american-family-association">American Family Association</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roger-williams">Roger Williams</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/american-humanist-association">American Humanist Association</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/isis">ISIS</a></span></div></div>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:08:28 +0000Rob Boston10479 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/oath-oaf-religious-right-columnist-calls-for-religious-tests-in-military#commentsExile Excitement: Some Fundamentalists Seek Escape From Decadent Societyhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/exile-excitement-some-fundamentalists-seek-escape-from-decadent-society
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The neo-Puritans just can’t take all the secularism, false religions and general gayness that’s rippling through American culture right now. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>OK, now we’ve done it. Those of us who advocate things like separation of church and state, secular government, LGBT rights and self-determination when it comes to issues of sexuality have really torqued off the Religious Right – so much so that some of them are thinking of going into exile.</p><p>Don’t get too excited. It’s not like they are going to flee <em>en masse</em> to some forgotten island or anything. Rather, some folks on the far, far right of the theological spectrum seem to be contemplating a type of “internal exile.” They’d hole up in a fundamentalist denomination until this current age of wickedness blows over.</p><p>David Gibson of Religion News Service <a href="http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/18/christian-conservatives-babylon/">described this phenomenon</a> recently. Gibson wrote that a strain of Religious Right activists is “feeling increasingly alienated and even persecuted in the society they once claimed as their own. They’re shifting to another favorite image from Scripture – that of the Babylonian exile, preparing, as the ancient Judeans did, to preserve their faith in a hostile world.”</p><p>Gibson quoted Carl Trueman, a professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Glenside, Pa. Picking up on the Religious Right’s increasingly popular persecution theme, Trueman carped, “We live in a time of exile. At least those of us do who hold to traditional Christian beliefs.” </p><p>Trueman made the comment in the journal <em>First Things</em>, an uber-Catholic publication that has long been the voice of those who pine for the 12th century and miss the days when no one dared question the local bishop lest they end up on a rack.</p><p>“[T]he Western public square,” Trueman bemoaned, “ is no longer a place where Christians feel they belong with any degree of comfort.”</p><p>Poor guy. Seems these neo-Puritans just can’t take all the secularism, false religions and general gayness that’s rippling through American culture right now. Worse yet, the Republicans, who were supposed to save us from all of this, seem more interested in slashing taxes and attacking the Affordable Care Act than ushering in the Second Coming.</p><p>No one appointed Trueman a spokesman for Christianity or even “traditional Christianity.” I know there are many good Christians who sharply disagree with him. But those in his camp are left with the question of what’s an upright (and uptight) fundamentalist to do these days?</p><p>I have a suggestion: Face a hard truth. It seems to me that you holier-than-thou types have been preachifying at us for a long time. It also seems to me that many of us have heard your message. (Believe me, we’ve heard it.)</p><p>Did it ever occur to you that maybe we are consciously rejecting it?</p><p>Perhaps we’re doing that because it’s not a very good message. All too often, it’s a message of division, a message of hate and a message of ignorance. It’s a message anchored in an intolerant past that we’re glad to have shed. We won’t go back. </p><p>I’d recommend that the fundamentalists preach a better message – but they don’t seem to have one. They can’t persuade us to voluntarily adopt their faith, and they’ve certainly tried to force us. But lately that hasn’t been working out too well for them, either.</p><p>What are their options? Well, the exile thing is certainly a possibility (although I find it amusing that the fundamentalists are already arguing among themselves about which right-wing religion is best to shelter them). But here’s another: Stop trying to run our lives. Mind your own business, and, for the most part, people will let you alone.</p><p>Bothered by gay sex? Don’t engage in it. Annoyed by books about evolution? Don’t read them. Discouraged because you don’t see enough evidence of your religion in public spots? Go to a place where you’re sure to find it – a church!</p><p>Gibson notes that these fundamentalists feel “alienated.” That could be, but they never seem to take the next step and ask why they’re feeling that way.</p><p>A little self-reflection is in order. The fundamentalists have no one but themselves to blame – because they peddle a crummy product. There’s a reason the period during which rigid religion ruled supreme is known as the “Dark Ages.” In more recent times in America and elsewhere, fundamentalist dominance spawned things like subjugation of women, censorship, anti-science views, coerced religious worship and suppression of other faiths.</p><p>The fundamentalists had their day, and they made a hash of it. So some people – I’m talking to you, Roger Williams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and John Leland – came up with a better option: religious and philosophical freedom for all backed by an officially secular government resting on a wall of separation between church and state.</p><p>Without apology, we can say that this way of doing things is demonstrably better. But there’s no reason for anyone to go into exile. Fundamentalists will always be free to go to church, proselytize (on their own time and with their own dime) and worship with like-minded believers as they see fit.</p><p>What they won’t be free to do is use the government to enforce a theology that most Americans have chosen not to adopt.</p><p>It’s a fair deal. But if it absolutely doesn’t please the Religious Right, I’m sure there’s still a forgotten island out there somewhere that can be fashioned into a theocratic utopia. Because those always work out so well, right? </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/first-things">First Things</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/carl-trueman">Carl Trueman</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/david-gibson">David Gibson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-madison">James Madison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roger-williams">Roger Williams</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/thomas-jefferson">thomas jefferson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-leland">John Leland</a></span></div></div>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:17:06 +0000Rob Boston10390 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/exile-excitement-some-fundamentalists-seek-escape-from-decadent-society#commentsState-Sponsored Supplications: Does The United States Really Need A National Day of Prayer?https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/state-sponsored-supplications-does-the-united-states-really-need-a-national
<a href="/about/people/james-c-nelson">James C. Nelson</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Creating any kind of a religious nation, Christian or otherwise, is exactly what the framers were trying to avoid when they drafted the First Amendment. And for good reason</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p align="left"><em>Editor’s Note: Today is the congressionally mandated National Day of Prayer. “The Wall of Separation” is pleased to offer this guest post by James C. Nelson, a retired justice of the Montana Supreme Court. Nelson was appointed to the court by</em> Gov. <em>Marc Racicot in 1993 and was reelected to the position three times, serving until his retirement in 2013. </em> </p><p align="left">Congress has proclaimed that the first Thursday in May – May 1, this year – be set aside as a National Day of Prayer. There will be prayer breakfasts and similar events conspicuously attended by elected officials, politicians and sectarian persona.</p><p align="left">But, should Congress and state officials be promoting prayer at all? According to the Constitution, no!</p><p align="left">The First Amendment guarantees two things: (1) that Congress will not prohibit the free exercise of religion; and (2) that Congress will make <em>no law</em> respecting an establishment of religion. These two clauses embody the wall separating church and state – a wall that is supposed to keep government out of religion, period.</p><p align="left">Why, then, did Congress create in 1952, and then codify in 1988, a “national” day of prayer? If your answer is, “True to the intentions of the Constitution’s framers, America is Christian Nation,” you’d be wrong. Indeed, creating any kind of a religious nation, Christian or otherwise, is exactly what the framers were trying to avoid when they drafted the First Amendment. And for good reason.</p><p align="left">At the time the First Amendment was adopted there actually were official state churches held over from colonial times. People were prosecuted and imprisoned for their religious practices and public statements at odds with those of the official or prevailing local religious views. Jews and Muslims were demonized and persecuted; Christians often violently disagreed over Biblical interpretation, religious doctrine and practice. Each sect had its own lock on the truth.</p><p align="left">In that historical context, and based on the views of men like Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, John Leland, George Washington, and James Madison, the First Amendment’s religion clauses were drafted to guarantee freedom of belief and tolerance for all religions - -and to keep government out of that mix.</p><p align="left">Importantly, there is not one mention of God, Jesus, Christ, Christianity or prayer in the religion clauses. There are only two references to “religion” in the Constitution – one in the First Amendment and another in Article VI banning any religious test for public office.</p><p align="left">Indeed, the “Christian Nation” concept first came into existence during the Civil War – largely conceived and perpetuated by Northern ministers who, when the war was going badly, announced that the Union Army’s defeats were God’s punishment for ignoring God in the Constitution. But, when the tide of war shifted, these same ministers then proclaimed that God was rewarding the spiritually upright side of the conflict. Thus, America being founded as a “Christian Nation” is fiction. Worse than that, it is exactly contrary to what the framers were trying to negate in the First Amendment.</p><p align="left">So, besides violating the principle of separation of church and state, what’s wrong with a national (or state) day of prayer? First, Americans don’t need a congressional proclamation to tell them to pray; they already have a personal, constitutional right to pray – or not to pray – as they (not the government) see fit.</p><p align="left">Second, government is <em>not permitted</em> to be in the business of telling people whether to pray, when to pray or who to pray to.</p><p align="left">Third, the National Day of Prayer has become a vehicle for spreading religious misinformation and fundamentalist Christian doctrine under the aegis of the government – again precisely what the framers were seeking to prohibit.</p><p align="left">Feel free to pray or not pray today – not in response to a congressional proclamation but because you have a constitutional right to do either. But, if you choose to pray, you may want to ask that our elected officials begin to honor the letter and spirit of the First Amendment and respect the separation of church and state.</p><p align="left">After all, each previously swore an oath to do just that.</p><p align="left"> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/prayer-at-government-events-and-legislative-meetings">Prayer at Government Events and Legislative Meetings</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/national-day-prayer">National Day of Prayer</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-dobson">James Dobson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roger-williams">Roger Williams</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/thomas-jefferson">thomas jefferson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-leland">John Leland</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/george-washington">George Washington</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-madison">James Madison</a></span></div></div>Thu, 01 May 2014 13:33:02 +0000Rob Boston9917 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/state-sponsored-supplications-does-the-united-states-really-need-a-national#commentsOath Oppression: It Makes No Sense To Coerce People To Swear To A God They Don’t Believe Inhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/oath-oppression-it-makes-no-sense-to-coerce-people-to-swear-to-a-god-they
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Mandatory religious oaths are a violation of the fundamental right of conscience. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Way back in the 1630s, the leaders of Puritan Massachusetts got the bright idea that every adult in the colony should be required to swear a loyalty oath to the governor that ended with the phrase “So help me God.”</p><p>The iconoclastic Puritan preacher Roger Williams was not impressed.</p><p>“A magistrate ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man,” he observed. Doing so, Williams asserted, would cause the oath taker “to take the name of God in vain.”</p><p>That was a long time ago. I had kind of hoped we had gotten this oath business straightened out by now. And we have – sort of.</p><p>Most courtrooms these days will allow an alternative oath for non-believers who don’t want to swear on the Bible or say “So help me God.” Elected or appointed officials being sworn into office can take the oath on the Bible, some other religious book, <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/no-bible-for-brennan-cia-director-takes-oath-of-office-on-constitution">the Constitution</a>, a law book or no document at all. New citizens being naturalized can choose between a <a href="https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/us-citizenship-and-immigration-services-must-end-religious-discrimination-says">religious or secular oath</a>.</p><p>Although there are occasional problems with this, word is getting out that mandatory religious oaths are a violation of the fundamental right of conscience. As our friend Williams pointed out nearly 400 years ago, why would we want to force someone to swear an oath they don’t even believe in? Doesn’t that kind of negate the oath?</p><p>Given all of this, I was kind of surprised recently to read about the case of Jonathan Bise, an officer candidate at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama who was told <a href="http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/08/maxwell_air_force_base_allows.html">he had to say an oath</a> ending in “So help me God” to graduate.</p><p>Bise knew this was not true. Backed by the American Humanist Association and the Military Alliance of Atheists and Freethinkers, he threatened to sue.</p><p>Base officials quickly reversed course. The <em>Birmingham News</em> reported that Major Stewart L. Rountree said he had been given bad information about the oath. To his credit, Rountree accepted the blame for the screw-up and vowed to make things right.</p><p>“This mistake is my fault and I take full accountability for the bad information,” Rountree wrote in an email to the groups. “Our previous legal advisors were mistaken in advising us that it was required because the (Air Force form) has static text stating ‘so help me God.’”</p><p>He went on to say, “[I]t is apparently common practice across the Air Force to allow a secular version. Again, I apologize and assure you that there was no agenda here. I just had bad information that is now remedied.”</p><p>That’s great. I wish every church-state issue could be resolved so smoothly and quickly.</p><p>Of course, Religious Right groups will probably start carping about this very soon. They’ve been on a tear lately about alleged <a href="http://www.militaryfreedom.org/">“hostility toward religion” in the military</a>. It’s all nonsense, of course – another manufactured controversy designed to stir up the theocratic legions and fill the coffers of groups like the Family Research Council and the American Family Association.</p><p>The Religious Right will likely cry and moan about secular oaths and the supposed assault on religious values in the armed forces that a secular option represents. They’ve carped about this before. In 2006, after Keith Ellison, a Muslim, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota, several far-right groups went ballistic over his plan to <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/january-2013-church-state/featured/so-help-me-gods">take the oath of office on a Quran</a>.</p><p>The American Family Association went so far as to advocate for federal legislation requiring members of Congress to swear on Bibles. Leaders of the AFA were too dim to grasp that this was an odd stance for conservative Christians to take, given the New Testament’s condemnation of oath-taking. (See the Epistle of James, 5:12.)</p><p>More to the point, fundamentalists remain flummoxed by the simple question posed by Williams so long ago: Why would we want to compel someone to swear an oath when that person does not believe what the oath says? What do we possibly stand to gain?</p><p>If anyone in the Religious Right has a compelling answer for the good Rev. Williams, I’d sure like to hear it.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-mottos-pledges-and-resolutions-outside-schools">Religious Mottos, Pledges and Resolutions (outside schools)</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/workplace-discrimination-exemptions-religious-practice">In the Workplace: Discrimination, Exemptions &amp; Religious Practice</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/maxwell-air-force-base">Maxwell Air Force Base</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/american-humanist-association">American Humanist Association</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/military-alliance-of-atheists-and-freethinkers">Military Alliance of Atheists and Freethinkers</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roger-williams">Roger Williams</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/stewart-l-rountree">Stewart L. Rountree</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/jonathan-bise">Jonathan Bise</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/oaths">oaths</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/american-family-association">American Family Association</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/keith-ellison">Keith Ellison</a></span></div></div>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:31:16 +0000Rob Boston8805 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/oath-oppression-it-makes-no-sense-to-coerce-people-to-swear-to-a-god-they#commentsMarriage Malarkey: R.I. Man Loses ‘Faith-Based’ Lawsuit Against Same-Sex Unionshttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/marriage-malarkey-ri-man-loses-faith-based-lawsuit-against-same-sex-unions
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">To hear Religious Right groups tell it, the actions of others – whether it’s the use of birth control or someone’s decision to marry the person he or she loves – can be an assault on a third party’s religious liberty.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Starting tomorrow, same-sex couples in Rhode Island will be able to <a href="http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130731-with-same-sex-weddings-starting-thursday-in-r.i.-cities-and-towns-field-questions.ece">legally marry</a> – despite the best efforts of a local Religious Right activist to stop them.</p><p>The Rhode Island legislature approved marriage equality earlier this year, and Gov. Lincoln Chafee signed the measure into law. At the time, Chafee invoked the spirit of the state’s founder, iconic religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams.</p><p>“Today we are making history…We are living up to the ideals of our founder,” Chafee said.</p><p>With marriages scheduled to begin Aug. 1, Ronald L’Heureux, a Rhode Island man who cofounded a group called the Faith Alliance to Preserve the Sanctity of Marriage as Defined by God, made a last-ditch effort to block the ceremonies.</p><p>L’Heureux went to state court and, representing himself, sought a temporary restraining order. He argued that same-sex marriage would somehow affect his ability to practice his faith and thus violated the religious freedom provisions of the Rhode Island Constitution.</p><p>Not surprisingly, the court was <a href="http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130730-judge-denies-restraining-order-to-stop-same-sex-marriages.ece">not persuaded</a>. Superior Court Judge Daniel Procaccini said L’Heureux had fallen “far short” of the standard required to win such an order.</p><p>The argument put forth by L’Heurerux is exceptionally weak, but it’s one we’re seeing a lot of these days from the Religious Right. To hear these groups tell it, somehow the actions of others – whether it’s the use of birth control or someone’s decision to marry the person he or she loves – can be an assault on a third party’s religious liberty.</p><p>In fact, all of those same-sex couples in Rhode Island who will get married tomorrow and afterward won’t affect L’Heureux’s ability to engage in religious activity one iota. He can still attend the church of his choice, pray, read the Bible, sing hymns, proselytize door to door, etc.</p><p>L’Heureux sounds like quite a piece of work. When high school student Jessica Ahlquist of Cranston, R.I.,<a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/april-2012-church-state/au-bulletin/rhode-island-student-wins-prayer-banner-lawsuit"> sued to have a prayer banner removed </a>from her public school in 2011, L’Heureux was dismayed. He even <a href="http://www.warwickonline.com/stories/Rev-from-Council-of-Churches-expresses-support-for-prayer-banner-removal,66926">wrote a letter</a> to a Christian minister who supported Ahlquist, asserting that the cleric does “not know the Christian history of our country.”</p><p>L’Heureux told the <em>Warwick Beacon</em> that separation of church and state is a “gross misinterpretation of the law.” He currently runs something called the <a href="http://blackroberegiment.ning.com/group/rhodeislandregiment?xg_source=activity">Black Robe Regiment of Rhode Island</a>, an entity inspired by a <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/september-2010-church-state/featured/unreality-show">fake piece of history </a>beloved by the Religious Right. It’s not much of a “regiment,” however. The current duty roster is L’Heureux and two others – one of whom lives in Georgia.</p><p>I suspect we’re going to hear more and more of these arguments as same-sex marriage spreads to other states. People will claim that their “religious freedom” is somehow infringed by what others are doing. But as we’ve explained many times here at Americans United, the only way that could happen is if churches were somehow compelled to recognize same-sex marriages – and that is not going to happen. No house of worship is going to be forced to perform any religious ceremony it does not want to perform.</p><p>Some houses of worship will choose to offer marriage services to same-sex couples. Some will not. Government clerks will be required to issue marriage licenses to all qualified applicants. End of story.</p><p>Back in the days of Barry Goldwater, conservatives preached the doctrine of self-determination. They urged folks to mind their own business and not try to run other people’s lives. I know there are still conservatives like that around – indeed they are a key component of AU’s membership – but alas, these days their voices tend to get drowned out by the strident catcalls of the Religious Right.</p><p>I wish that some of those old-fashioned conservatives would sit down and have a chat with L’Heureux. He seems awfully confused.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/marriage-including-same-sex-marriage">Marriage (including same-sex Marriage)</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ronald-l-heureux">Ronald L’Heureux</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/same-sex-marriage">same-sex marriage</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rhode-island">Rhode Island</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roger-williams">Roger Williams</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/lincoln-chafee">Lincoln Chafee</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/daniel-procaccini">Daniel Procaccini</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/jessica-ahlquist">Jessica Ahlquist</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/barry-goldwater">Barry Goldwater</a></span></div></div>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:37:24 +0000Rob Boston8797 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/marriage-malarkey-ri-man-loses-faith-based-lawsuit-against-same-sex-unions#commentsFreedom From Foolishness?: Texas Gov. Misconstrues Religious Liberty https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/freedom-from-foolishness-texas-gov-misconstrues-religious-liberty
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Under the right conditions, we all want freedom from religion – or at least freedom from certain religions.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Whenever I hear someone – especially a politician – say that the First Amendment protects freedom <em>of </em>religion, not freedom <em>from</em> religion, I just want to start screaming.</p><p>As I’ve pointed out many times on this blog and in other forums, that statement is inane and shows great ignorance of our founding principles. Religious Right figures started using it a few years ago, apparently believing they had stumbled onto something clever. In fact, they are simply spouting puerile nonsense.</p><p>The latest offender is Texas Gov. Rick Perry. While signing legislation guaranteeing people’s right to say “Merry Christmas” (which is, in itself, an incredibly <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/merry-christmas-in-may-texas-legislators-reaffirm-right-to-use-holiday">silly bill</a>), <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/13/texas-gov-rick-perry-americans-have-no-right-to-freedom-from-religion/">Perry popped off</a>, “I’m proud we are standing up for religious freedom in our state. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion.”</p><p>Actually, Gov. Perry, it does. People who were a lot smarter than you – Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, to name a few – understood this. You see, religious freedom must, by its very nature, include the right to reject all religion or else it isn’t really religious freedom.</p><p>Jefferson put it well in an autobiographical fragment he once wrote. He was reflecting back to the time when the Virginia legislature passed his pioneering Statute for Religious Freedom. Jefferson’s bill <a href="http://www.vahistorical.org/sva2003/vsrf.htm">guaranteed to all</a> the right to make up their own minds about religion.</p><p>It reads in part that no one “shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”</p><p>Note that the statute doesn’t say that you’re free to choose whatever religion you want. It says the state will not harass you on account of your religion opinions – and these may include the right to reject all faiths.</p><p>Jefferson was in France when the legislature debated his bill. His close associate Madison shepherded the bill through the Virginia General Assembly. After it passed, Madison wrote to Jefferson to tell him the good news. Madison noted that some legislators tried to limit the bill’s protections to Christians only, but that this was rejected.</p><p>Jefferson rejoiced.</p><p>He wrote, “The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”</p><p>Unlike Perry, Jefferson understood that for freedom of conscience to be meaningful, it has to encompass the infidels too.</p><p>Consider this as well: Under the right conditions, we all want freedom from religion – or at least freedom from certain religions. A Methodist is not a Muslim for a reason. If the public school system or some other arm of government began imposing Islam, Scientology, Zoroastrianism (or even liberal Christianity) onto people against their will, I’d expect Gov. Perry and his followers would immediately demand to be free from that religion.</p><p>The separation of church and state protects us from fundamentalist zealots who’d like nothing better than to be able to use government power to shove their narrow version of religion down our throats. They can’t. That sure sounds like freedom from religion to me.</p><p>Despite the efforts of Perry and his theocratic brigades, this is still a free country when it comes to religion. You’re free to spread your faith (on your own dime and with your own resources), and someone else is free to tell you that you’re all wet and they wouldn’t consider joining your faith under any circumstances.</p><p>That’s freedom of and from religion in action.</p><p>Perry and his pals would like Americans to think that we must choose between “freedom of” and “freedom from” religion. That’s nonsense. Those two concepts complement one another and do not fight.</p><p>We can have both. We must have both. We <em>do</em> have both. It’s the only way we can remain truly free.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/responding-common-attacks-church-state-separation">Responding to Common Attacks on Church-State Separation</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/gov-rick-perry">Gov. Rick Perry</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/texas">Texas</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/thomas-jefferson">thomas jefferson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-madison">James Madison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roger-williams">Roger Williams</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/virginia-statute-religious-freedom">Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom</a></span></div></div>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:44:41 +0000Rob Boston8666 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/freedom-from-foolishness-texas-gov-misconstrues-religious-liberty#commentsFive Brave Christian Clergy Who Opposed Church-State Unionhttps://www.au.org/media/in-the-news/five-brave-christian-clergy-who-opposed-church-state-union
<div class="field field-name-field-news-source field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Alternet</div></div></div>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:05:31 +0000Rob Boston6781 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/media/in-the-news/five-brave-christian-clergy-who-opposed-church-state-union#commentsRemembering Roger: Williams Was A Separation Pioneer Whose Ideas Should Not Be Forgottenhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/remembering-roger-williams-was-a-separation-pioneer-whose-ideas-should-not
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">It is fully possible to have absolute confidence in one’s own values, beliefs and ideas without forcing them on anyone else.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>It’s cliché to say that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, but it’s also true, and so as 2011 comes to a close it’s a good time to look back at the impact of Roger Williams on church-state separation.</p><p>Williams was a Puritan clergyman who left England for America in 1630 seeking to distance himself from the Anglican Church, which he felt had become corrupt. When he arrived at the fledgling Massachusetts Bay Colony, he got off on the wrong foot with his fellow Puritans after he declined to accept a position with the Boston church. In a <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/God-Government-and-Roger-Williams-Big-Idea.html?c=y&amp;page=1">very good article</a> in <em>Smithsonian Magazine</em>, author John M. Barry wrote that Williams turned down the offer because:</p><p>“[The Boston church was] insufficiently committed to the proper worship of God," Barry wrote. "Williams did not differ with them on any point of theology. They shared the same faith… but the colony’s leaders, both lay and clergy, firmly believed that the state must prevent error in religion. They believed that the success of the Massachusetts plantation depended upon it.</p><p>Williams believed that preventing error in religion was impossible, for it required people to interpret God’s law, and people would inevitably err. He therefore concluded that government must remove itself from anything that touched upon human beings’ relationship with God. A society built on the principles Massachusetts espoused would lead at best to hypocrisy, because forced worship, he wrote, ‘stincks [sic] in God’s nostrils.’ At worst, such a society would lead to a foul corruption—not of the state, which was already corrupt, but of the church,” Barry wrote.</p><p>As a result of his opinions, Williams was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony within a few years. He chose to found a more tolerant, religiously free colony at Providence in what is now the state of Rhode Island. Williams was thus a pioneer for the idea of church-state separation and a Founding Father more than 100 years before the generation of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.</p><p>But as Barry points out, Williams’ ideas about separation created problems that we continue to wrestle with today.</p><p>“The dispute defined for the first time two fault lines that have run through American history ever since,” Barry wrote. “The first, of course, is over the proper relation between government and what man has made of God—the church. The second is over the relation between a free individual and government authority—the shape of liberty.”</p><p>The most fascinating thing about Williams, at least according to Barry, is that he was a man of deep religious conviction and belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and yet he still favored church-state separation.</p><p>“Roger Williams was not a man out of time. He belonged to the 17th century and to Puritans in that century,” Barry wrote. “Yet he was also one of the most remarkable men of his or any century. With absolute faith in the literal truth of the Bible and in his interpretation of that truth, with absolute confidence in his ability to convince others of the truth of his convictions, he nonetheless believed it ‘monstrous’ to compel conformity to his or anyone else’s beliefs,” Barry wrote.</p><p>This is what the Religious Right simply does not understand. It is fully possible to have absolute confidence in one’s own values, beliefs and ideas without forcing them on anyone else. As Williams knew even before the United States existed, this country is not supposed to be about forcing anyone to believe anything. This is a lesson for all time, and it should be remembered for all time. </p><p>The Wall of Separation will be on hiatus until January 3. Happy New Year, everyone!</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roger-williams">Roger Williams</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-m-barry">John M. Barry</a></span></div></div>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:55:42 +0000Simon Brown6520 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/remembering-roger-williams-was-a-separation-pioneer-whose-ideas-should-not#commentsChristmas Cranks: Rhode Island Governor Under Fire For ‘Holiday Tree’https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/christmas-cranks-rhode-island-governor-under-fire-for-%E2%80%98holiday-tree%E2%80%99
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Some Rhode Island residents are bent out of shape over a &#039;holiday tree&#039; at the statehouse. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>My family and I are planning to get a Christmas tree this weekend. We usually opt for a Fraser fir. They’re attractive trees with sharp needles that discourage our two cats from getting too close.</p><p>I have no problem calling it a Christmas tree because we celebrate Christmas. But if someone called it a “holiday tree” or even “a seasonal evergreen display,” I wouldn’t much care. The holiday will come either way, and we’ll still experience all of our traditions.</p><p>In Rhode Island, some people are <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jdvtBRnifZGXByCRsIkYiv7GuyHA?docId=cfb3d218583e4560bac3986caeb0d8bd">all worked up</a> because Gov. Lincoln Chafee has repeatedly referred to the “holiday tree” at the statehouse in Providence. The Fox News Channel has been whining incessantly, and politicians in the state are piling on.</p><p>Even Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence has joined in. Tobin called Chafee’s terminology “most disheartening and divisive” and said the governor’s action is “an affront to the faith of many citizens.”</p><p>In response, Chafee has pointed out that Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams, a 17th-century religious liberty pioneer who despised all forms of government-sponsored religion. Williams, who fled Massachusetts because he couldn’t tolerate the bay colony’s oppressive theocracy, once uttered the memorable line, “Forced religion stinks in the nostrils of God.”</p><p>So what’s really going on here? Are people in Rhode Island really so thin-skinned that they have nothing better to do than fight over what to call a Christmas tree? I doubt it. I think politics has a lot to do with it.</p><p>Jim Baron, a columnist for the <em>Woonsocket Call</em>, gets it right.</p><p>“I’m sorry, but I get a whiff of politics about all this nonsense,” <a href="http://www.woonsocketcall.com/node/4017">Baron wrote recently</a>. “This isn’t about some ‘War on Christmas.’ It is a war on Chafee.”</p><p>Baron noted that Chafee’s predecessor, Republican Donald Carcieri, used the term “holiday tree,” and no one batted an eyelash.</p><p>“But now that Chafee is in the governor’s office the sky is falling because he won’t call the damn tree a Christmas tree,” Baron wrote. “Why is everyone’s hair on fire over this? Can’t they just look at it and say, ‘that’s one more thing Linc Chafee is wrong about’? I mean, these are people who already think that Linc Chafee is wrong about six things every day before breakfast. Why does this one stick in their craw?”</p><p>Part of the problem may be that Chafee doesn’t have a huge political base. He’s a former Republican who left the party because he believed it had become too conservative, and he backed Barack Obama in 2008. In 2010, he was elected governor in a four-way race with just 36 percent of the vote.</p><p>Chafee has been mindful of church-state separation while in office. His inauguration in January did not include an official prayer service, although religious leaders were invited to give an invocation and a benediction.</p><p>Bishop Tobin was so angry over what he perceived as a slight that he refused to attend. I suspect the bishop’s latest salvo against Chafee over the holiday tree has more to do with his hurt feelings than principle.</p><p>The Rev. Donald C. Anderson, executive minister of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, had a more mature take on the matter.</p><p>“I would ask my fellow Christians,” <a href="http://news.providencejournal.com/politics/2011/11/ri-church-council-head-asks-if-jesus-would-care-what-we-call-a-tree.html#.TtznJFauHTo">said Anderson</a>, “with all of the poverty, hunger and injustice that surround us, do we really believe that Jesus would have us spend all this time and energy around what we call a tree? Do we truly think that the Jesus of the Gospels cares what we call a tree?”</p><p>Bishop Tobin could learn a few things from Rev. Anderson. If you’re devout and believe in the spirit and meaning of Christmas, then maybe it would be more productive to focus on good works instead of playing political games. After all, to believers, Christmas is supposed to be a season of peace and goodwill, right? A sensible person embraces those principles no matter what the tree at the statehouse is called.</p><p>Gov. Chafee’s critics need to let up on the man, take a deep breath and find their way back to real reason for the season. To mangle a well-known proverb, I’d say they can’t see the forest because of their obsession over a Christmas tree.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/government-sponsored-religious-displays">Government-Sponsored Religious Displays</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rhode-island">Rhode Island</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roger-williams">Roger Williams</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/lincoln-chafee">Lincoln Chafee</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/christmas">Christmas</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/war-christmas">war on christmas</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/bishop-thomas-tobin">Bishop Thomas Tobin</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/donald-c-anderson">Donald C. Anderson</a></span></div></div>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:33:39 +0000Rob Boston6436 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/christmas-cranks-rhode-island-governor-under-fire-for-%E2%80%98holiday-tree%E2%80%99#comments